Meigs Field gone without warning

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 1, 2003 | Bob Herguth and Dave McKinney

[taxcontrol]

FAA does not regulat property. FAA regulates the operations of airports. Further, the FAA HAS ALREADY STATED that no laws were broken.

Yes, there was a administrative regulation that requires airport to notify when their runways are not able to receive aircraft.

And yes, the filing came late. But it was filed and no accident resulted from the late filing. Further, the airport is no longer in operation.

Do you know what is the most drastic thing the FAA can do to an airport - shut it down. The city already did that. Nothing left for the FAA here to do.

I feel sorry for the folks who wanted the airport to stay open - but there is NO LEGAL ISSUE here.

[taxcontrol]

See my #41.

Granted it would have been better for the airfield to first notify the FAA then take the runways out of commission.

[Writer1]

Dear All,

The Constitution prohibits the government from denying individuals their rights to life, liberty and property without due process of law.

Fifth amendment prohibits takings without compensation.

Daley must compenstate the owners by law.

That's my take -- and I am a lawyer.

[Mr_Magoo]

but there is NO LEGAL ISSUE here.

Did Daily file an Environmental Impact Statement?

Did he take into account the damage to the habitat of the endangered Chicago Cockroach?

Does his violation of the O'Hare Expansion Plan that called for Meigs to remain open cause the entire O'Hare Expansion plan to be Null and Void?

[Mr_Magoo]

My letter to Senator Fitzgerald:

During the overnight period of March 30 - March 31, Mayor Daily bulldozed the runway at Meigs Fld. This disturbs me greatly. I am of the understanding that part of the agreement between Daily and Ryan ( that is being debated in the Senate) was that Meigs was to remain open to general avation.

I am of the opinion that because Daily has violated that agreement, the O'Hare Expansion Agreement is now Null and Void. NO Federal funds should be released to the city of Chicago for O'Hare Expansion without Meigs being restored at the Mayor's expence first.

Not to mention that the Mayor did this excavation without first filing an Environmental Impact Statement.

Please do what you can to overturn this travisty.

Thank you,

Magoo

[taxcontrol]

The Constitution prohibits the government from denying individuals their rights to life, liberty and property without due process of law.

Fifth amendment prohibits takings without compensation.

Daley must compenstate the owners by law.

That's my take -- and I am a lawyer.

---

I'm not a lawyer - I have always represented myself in court.

But would recommend you consider the follow

Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457, 551 (1871). The Fifth Amendment ''has never been supposed to have any bearing upon, or to inhibit laws that indirectly work harm and loss to individuals,'' the Court explained.

Meyer v. City of Richmond, 172 U.S. 82 (1898).


Also consider the following from Findlaw:

Government Activity Not Directed at the Property .--The older cases proceeded on the basis that the requirement of just compensation for property taken for public use referred only to ''direct appropriation, and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power.'' 236

Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings: damage to abutting property resulting from the authorization of a railroad to erect tracts, sheds, and fences over a street; 237

similar deprivations, lessening the circulation of light and air and impairing access to premises, resulting from the erection of an elevated viaduct over a street, or resulting from the changing of a grade in the street. 238

Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action, such as the expenses incurred by a railroad in planking an area condemned for a crossing, constructing gates, and posting gatemen, 239 or by a landowner in raising the height of the dikes around his land to prevent their partial flooding consequent to private construction of a dam under public licensing. 240

[OldFriend]

It's not about sex, it's about the constitution.

[OldFriend]

Sneaking around in the night smells to high heaven. If he couldn't convince his city that his position was correct then he wasn't a good leader.

[fight_truth_decay]

.."legal because all federal loans to build the facility have been repaid and the decision to keep it open lies with the city. Past research indicates that the law hasn't been broken."..you also rewrote the headline to this piece with no touch on the facts nor offered any other facts which are a prominent part of the story. First, I thought this was a hit piece by this newspaper until I realized the news source did not author this piece to fit the headline....going back to Ron in post #4.

You left out the compensation in the piece and other legal references. There were many stories written on Daley's "sneaking around in the night" surfacing yesterday through today.

One does not have to sneak in the night in Chicagoland. The light pollution never presents a darkness to sneak around in. If you are a resident of Chicagoland and/or have visted the major cities around this country, you have to agree Chicago is one of the most beautiful. But, I will hand it to you, Writer1; you have brought a good piece of news-spin to the table for discussion. However, I see no case here.

Again if you are inconvenienced by this action by the City, my sympathy. This has been and will continue to be a passionate partisan debate.

Respectfully

f_t_d

[bert]

His brother tried to overthrow the US government by stealing the election for the Presidency. What's one runway when compared to that?

The Daley brother should go visit their mother.

[xdem]

> No, failure to comply with a contract condiction (rental agreement) is not a "taking".

Generally, yes. So why is this a taking? Because aircraft owners have been deprived, possibly only temporarily, of the use of their aircraft for the eventual purpose of building a park. I'll agree that most previous cases have been about real estate, not temporary loss of access to vehicles.

They have also been deprived of the rent they paid to store their aircraft at the airport.

If the aircraft have to be disassembled, and are not re-certifiable, they will be an even more complete taking, involving the future use of the aircraft, again for the purpose of building a park.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pi210.html

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/elc/landuse/takings.htm

[taxcontrol]

I would say that another interpretation would be that the aircraft has not been taken for the following reasons:

1) The city has taken no action to assume ownership of the aircraft
2) They have not be deprived of their rent. After all the aircraft are using that very rent right now.
3) The ONLY thing that they have been denied is access to the air - from the city's property.

It has been ruled that consequential injury does not constitute a taking. Similar deprivations such as impairing access to premises (the airport which is city property) were also ruled as not constituting a taking.

Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action. In this case that would be the expense associated with the relocation of the aircraft.

I've not known anyone to be sucessfull in going against established rulings. And I doubt the city lawyers would over look such rulings.

The case you make may hold some merit if in the rental contract such provisions are declared - but I doubt it.
Either way an interesting legal exercise. Sounds like it would be a good hypothetical case for a law class.

[Mr_Magoo]

In all respect, there is one angle in this that you are avoiding. The O'Hare Expansion Agreement between Chicago, the State, and in it's final stage in the US Senate.

One clause in that agreement calls for Meigs Fld. to remain open until 2026. There is a rider that allows it to be closed in 2006 under very specific conditions.

By Daily violating the terms of that agreement, the entire agreement is most likely null and void. The result of this means that billions of $ that Daily and Chicago can lose. $ that were earmarked for Daily cronies in construction contracts.

[supercat]

Good will be a park to be enjoyed by all now. Great extension for biking, blading, jogging etc...maybe another Buckingham.

Suppose Mayor Daley thought Buckingham Fountain should be replaced by a statue of his late mother. Would he have the authority to simply order some bulldozers to crunch the old fountain and have his statute built?

According to the article, the demolition costs were well over $100,000. Does Mayor Daley have the authority to spend such sums of taxpayer money on a whim?

[fight_truth_decay]

In all respect: "Despite repeated references to an “historic agreement” between Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Gov. George Ryan to expand O’Hare Airport, it turns out that — according to lawyers for Chicago and the Governor — no such written accord exists."

"Which leads to the question of whether the “historic agreement” that Daley and Ryan have told Congress they entered into really exists.” said Bensenville Village President John Geils. “Where is the ‘historic agreement’ in which Ryan supposedly gave his approval for O’Hare expansion?" 3/20/03 SOC

[fight_truth_decay]

Hardly a whim..but I like your rebuttle.

Fact is everything is all legal and I think thought out completely before the action took place. The post I just made prior referenceing Ryan opened the way.

I however, SBC getting the prison contract(no other bidders?).. SBC Communications Inc., President William Daley. That is the buzz.

F_T_D

[supercat]

Fact is everything is all legal and I think thought out completely before the action took place.

I guess I just find it rather surprising that the mayor has that level of authority. Perhaps there's some rule that says he does, but I would have thought there would have be a public session of the alder-yes-men who would have to approve any major expenditures. $100,000 isn't exactly peanuts.

[drlevy88]

So both Ryan and Daley lied to Congress. How special.

[Falcon4.0]

Thanks for the fatcs. I hadn't heard it was aready closed.

[xdem]

> It has been ruled that consequential injury does not constitute a taking.


Please examine "takings" cases at:

http://www.ij.org/index.shtml